Environment reporters facing harassment and murder, study finds

Tally of deaths makes it one of most dangerous fields for journalists after war reporting

Thirteen journalists who were investigating damage to the environment have been killed in recent years and many more are suffering violence, harassment, intimidation and lawsuits, according to a study.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which produced the tally, is investigating a further 16 deaths over the last decade. It says the number of murders may be as high as 29, making this field of journalism one of the most dangerous after war reporting.

On every continent reporters have been attacked for investigating concerns about abuses related to the impact of corporate and political interests scrambling to extract wealth from the earth’s remaining natural resources.

These resources end up in all manner of products – from mobile phones to pots and pans – with consumers largely unaware of the stories behind them.

The study was produced for Green Blood, a reporting project whose aim is to continue the reporting of local environmental journalists who have been forced to abandon their work.

Pinterest
 Goldmining in Tanzania. Photograph: Handout Acacia Mining plc

Led by Forbidden Stories, a group of 15 media partners, including the Guardian, El País and Le Monde, have come together to shine an international light on the way these activities affect local environments and communities.

“Environmental issues involve some of the greatest abuses of power in the world and some of the greatest of concentrations of power in the world,” said Bruce Shapiro, the director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma.

“I’m hard put to think of a category of investigative reporters who are routinely dealing with more dangerous actors. Investigative reporting on the environment can be as dangerous a beat as reporting on narco smuggling.”

Click Here to read the full story

Advertisements

Lookup to MyBMC during this rainy season

BMC is working really hard to ensure you aren’t stuck & inconvenienced. Follow for updates and tweet to us, we’re here for you.

A wonderful initiative by MCGM – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

INCOME TAX ON CELL TOWER RENT WHICH IS ILLEGAL UNDER BYE LAW 169

Many cooperative societies have rented a portion of their respective terrace for cell tower installation.  In the income tax such earning should be shown as income from house and not from other source of income.  in income return one should show the cell tower space rent as “income from house property” and can get 30% set off in computation of taxable income.  In case cell tower rent is shown as “Income from other sources” or “income from business” the 30% set off will not be allowed.  Since terrace is a portion of “house”, such income from House property is justified.
However, Bye Law 169 prohibits renting of common areas, therefore, such earning are illegal earning.  Therefore, an offence.
Audit of many societies are in progress.  Take proper care for computation of taxable income.
Dr P K Banerjee  drpkbanerjee@hotmail.com
982 097 4449 / 8850 771 660

Bank transfers ₹48k to wrong account, held guilty for ‘careless’ transaction

Holding Canara Bank guilty of carrying out a careless real-time gross settlement (RTGS) transfer through which Rs. 48,000 was sent to the wrong account, the state consumer commission recently said it cannot solely depend on the account number and transfer amounts without cross-checking names of the beneficiary, branch and city where the branch is.

Pradeep Tripathi, from Parel, found that the money he wanted transferred to the account of a business supplier in Chandigarh was sent to the account of an unknown person in Hyderabad. The bank was recently ordered to refund the amount along with a compensation of around Rs32,000.

A district forum had ruled in Tripathi’s favour in June 2018. But the bank moved an appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The commission upheld the district forum order. “The forum rightly held that the correct account number was written by the complainant (Tripathi) on the RTGS transfer slip but opponent (Canara Bank) did not verify before making the transfer and had done it carelessly, and transferred the amount to a different account. The forum correctly held that the complainant was not responsible for the mistake by the bank and it was guilty and responsible for the deficiency in service,” the state commission said.

image.png

Tripathi told the commission that after he realised his money was wrongly transferred, he informed the bank, and told it to credit the amount back in his account, but it was not done. Tripathi said he moved the district forum in 2015 after his efforts for a favourable solution from the banking ombudsman failed.

The bank claimed Tripathi provided the wrong account number, which was clear from the RTGS slip. But the state commission said it had gone through the main copy of the slip and found that the number ‘6’ in the account number seemed to have been corrected as ‘8’ by overwriting. It observed that there was no initial or authentication for the correction.


“In normal case, the bank never accepts such overwriting without any initial or authentication. Therefore, the overwriting or correction is done subsequently, and not by the complainant,” the commission said.

It said this was obvious from the acknowledgement slip given to Tripathi with the bank stamp and seal, which showed the wrong account number without any correction or overwriting.

Sahakar bhann you tube channel

“SAHAKAR BHANN” channel publishes programs in “Housing & Co-operative” general. It produces documentaries, seminars, interviews of the celebrities and people working at various Housing & Co-operative sector. We seek your support and feedback for producing intellectually stimulating and engaging digital content.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTNGriST9QiYzuvhmoIlH-g 

Patient can seek refund if clinic is shifted

Chain clinics usually open branches throughout the city on premises taken on lease. If a clinic is shifted, can the patient be compelled to continue treatment at another branch or would the patient have the right to demand a refund? This unique case was recently decided by the Maharashtra State Commission.
 
Metropolis Healthcare Ltd, having its main office at Worli, had set up a chain of clinics. In 2011, Aziz Ahmed Jadwet took his children Maryam and Kauser to the Mantralaya centre for orthodontic treatment.
 
After consulting Dr. Neesu, Jadwet was advised to deposit Rs 41,000 for Maryam and Rs 36,000 for Kauser, which he did.
 
Meanwhile, the Mantralaya centre shut down. On making inquiries, Aziz was told Dr Neesu would treat the children at the Goregaon centre. Since this was inconvenient, Aziz sought a refund, but his request was rejected.
 
Aziz filed a complaint before the Central Mumbai District Forum, which held Metropolis guilty of deficiency in service and ordered it to refund the deposit along with 9% interest from November 24, 2015 onward along with Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs.
 
Metropolis appealed against this order. Jadwet, who appeared in person, argued the distance between the two centres was about 35 km, and it would be inconvenient for his school going children to travel to Goregaon. The Maharashtra State Commission concurred with Jadwet. It agreed with the District Forum’s view that the failure to refund money constituted a deficiency in service.
 
By its order (March 5), delivered by justice A P Bhangale along with Dr. S K Kakade, the State Commission upheld the Forum’s order and dismissed the appeal with further Rs 5,000 cost payable by Metropolis to Jadwet Impact:A patient cannot be compelled to travel long distances to a clinic. If the change in location is inconvenient, a demand for refund is justified.
 
Jehangir B Gai
ePaper, The Times of India, Bombay, Monday, April 8, 2019, Page 8:
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist  @outlook.in )